X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Tom Gillespie" Received: from nm45-vm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([216.109.115.78] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.7) with ESMTPS id 8212329 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:53 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.109.115.78; envelope-from=pseudowilly33@ymail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ymail.com; s=s2048; t=1449075754; bh=aTbYhcNcqQ1vMWUu/kpbYHdWBm47IfHLxERc5nWa0I8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=KR+064zxYv72b28EXGmV3FvrMN3b6rWB52yZppUo8usauER9EzAnKIMldWBWeHHMcMxRX+3UtowWBEPtCE2AL18TYXawcJPKbMYEp2mUBdewmbElTd1pMlhoIkSVh2oNTB/brQS5YBCfeDcocXWvkVTBtf0ai3qKb6zfj+2txAmM1jLGJIiiuo000C4OzukPY+oxVvfYvcHZ4oJF313rINGul+Sc0OBtHlGjMm0cV5Fth73eyMSCNaJz4ZJ6BMCi6YLgFUtbkwv92r+MDKRXmEhdDMLuYjWqiUIsCvPZ8ppnCqwT18DsV811nUwiEydbP/7YU6wjn6XgUgRY15J4Eg== Received: from [98.139.170.179] by nm45.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2015 17:02:34 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.248] by tm22.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2015 17:02:34 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Dec 2015 17:02:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 364736.88519.bm@omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: I8tOR9sVM1kZJM_gQUe71vq_F9GwhwXMfllrw0XpZPnCPWFsr7S1KmBO5InjXo. tmD7x2kfzaI5qU2tfZTRVFqDb8NaC.2gr.O6pIa8.vkbfZ1_No669plsr8RgHbUPYVqZ5YGhJQFQ fhiIiNNGPKc6oPhj.Pc181LGHOZtf2m8QBxQS1awb_x0A2GkMMy61zDD_9ywpOjOyGocbN098KTv qGhmlVxnMH4Lsu8hTBfL4qBL3ckqtKgTcnVuML8gPnWnMBTSwJZnC0fLGCjbpAmCnedYLvfIgqm2 YrJZ7LbT7gobpycGdyMcR6YoYAqUF_3mECVYA0AkVKpIp.2YQGIHeAOCmz60jovbXco6_UY8.6RV vCN0EdaFdc4wXr0T1hxvuPCuJo.hq0KBlCMbin_jykJfSWsELqs5mpiFkvJdKsrsMOxa4SuSO5pm cR8eCEJcqvQoM4UQngmKU_egadLHABXwMS4Ohu3LyUxREW_tpMXAFyCFoKjO8dMi_JZd6RNbnD7. RCZhh8kut2j.tlsELkhXyHhMHVrPCDQ-- Received: by 66.196.80.144; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:02:33 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: Tom Gillespie To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-ID: <1664113103.14837130.1449075753463.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14837129_958843113.1449075753456" Content-Length: 19689 ------=_Part_14837129_958843113.1449075753456 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bump::::::=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Morning all. I still have the 20B up for sale. Talk= ed to a couple of people but no cash yet. If you are interested, you can co= ntact me on Facebook as stated before and I am on the canard forums as Magn= um.=C2=A0Thanks for looking!~~~tg~~~ From: Tom Gillespie To: Rotary motors in aircraft =20 Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:44 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options =20 Morning everyone,=C2=A0 I received a few replies to facebook late last nigh= t about the 20B and this morning I went to respond and they are gone for so= me reason. If you responded, please do it again or you can find me on the c= anard forums as magnum. Sorry for the mix up.~~~tg~~~ From: Bobby J. Hughes To: Rotary motors in aircraft =20 Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:25 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options =20 James. A PP is not a bad idea if you need the extra HP. My opinion is based on the= RV10 airframe that is designed for 260HP. The 20B side port is a perfect m= atch but you may benefit using a good (MT) constant speed prop. Cold idle a= nd taxi tuning is more challenging because of the higher manifold pressure.= 17-18" MP has been observed but this improves some as the engine warms up.= =C2=A0 A PP adds noise but a lot more available takeoff HP if needed. Not s= ure you will see any benefit at normal cruise rpm but I bet you could easil= y reach VNE at higher rpm.=C2=A0 I really like Tracy's simple intake with s= traight runners and plenum.=C2=A0 Have fun! Bobby -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:05 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options So I finally got a dynamic pressure test done on this 20B.=C2=A0 Here is wh= at I got: Front: 105-125-105 Center: 105-101-87 Rear: 130-125-120 This is in PSI and was done with all spark plugs out except the rotor being= tested.=C2=A0 That one got one spark plug and the compression fitting with= pressure transducer attached in the other.=C2=A0 I used the RD-1C installe= d, but not engaged - I bolted up the flex plate without the adapter and bol= ted up the RD-1C with a starter to be able to crank it over.=C2=A0 So the r= edrive was not slowing things down when I cranked it over.=C2=A0 Then I rec= orded the pressure wave on a laptop and looked at three bumps in a row.=C2= =A0 I did this a few times for each rotor with a pause in between and took = the highest readings of any three successive peaks to estimate the health o= f the three faces on each rotor. My understanding is that higher numbers are better and the same numbers acr= oss all faces in the motor is better.=C2=A0 I am unclear what an unacceptab= le low number might be.=C2=A0 The actual values you get are dependent on a = number of factors including how fast you are cranking (how well charged you= r battery is, how beefy the cables are, what kind of porting, other losses = like the PSRU if it were engaged, etc.) and if the motor is broken in or no= t.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t know if this motor was broken in, or if any seals = were replaced.=C2=A0 It looks clean inside and there is evidence of porting= , but I don=E2=80=99t know exactly what (this is a side port configuration = motor). When I lost a side seal on my 13B REW in my RX-7, I got something like 118-= 120-50 on the rotor that had the problem.=C2=A0 So that was clearly not goo= d.=C2=A0 When I rebuilt that motor that time, I had the plates ground as th= ey were beyond the wear limit and I used all new side and corner seals and = springs.=C2=A0 After that rebuild, I got uniformly 120 to 130 on all faces = which I think is very good. So, what do you guys think of my 20B numbers?=C2=A0 Is that low face on the= Center rotor bad enough to warrant tearing the motor completely apart?=C2= =A0 If I decide to do that, I might very well go PP.=C2=A0 Though Bobby at = least thinks that is a bad idea due to noise and tuning difficulties with t= he PP.=C2=A0 Or I could just live with it with these numbers, go side port,= and break it in and start checking this periodically to see if there is an= y improvement or further deterioration. Thoughts or opinions? =E2=80=94 James > On Oct 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, James R. Osborn wrote: >=20 > Hi guys, >=20 > So I am going to be building an RV-10.=C2=A0 I sourced Bobby=E2=80=99s sp= are 20B / RD-1C combo and my plan is to work on the motor first, kind of ba= ss-ackward but that is what I am doing.=C2=A0 My plan is to build a motor/m= ount test stand and work everything out on the ground before I ever put it = in an airframe.=C2=A0 I plan to set it up NA using the existing side port c= onfiguration.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t know if it is ported - I am going to at= tempt to determine this by inspection without cracking it open and doing a = dynamic compression test to evaluate the health of the motor.=C2=A0 If it i= s necessary to entirely rebuild the motor, I would probably go PP.=C2=A0 So= I am thinking the target HP as it is would be in the 275 HP range and prob= ably 325 HP if it ends up being a PP.=C2=A0 How do these numbers sound to y= ou all? >=20 > I will be looking for a way to dyno it, hopefully borrow one to get some = data.=C2=A0 But I was also thinking about just getting an appropriate fixed= pitch prop and working through the bugs based on static run ups.=C2=A0 I l= ike the idea of a three blade prop.=C2=A0 I like the idea of optimizing for= cruise at 75%, say 5800 rpm which would put full throttle at 7733 rpm on t= he 20B.=C2=A0 At 5800 rpm, the prop would be spinning 2035 rpm and at full = throttle 2713 rpm (using the 2.85 ratio RD-1C PSRU).=C2=A0 Do all these num= bers sound about right? >=20 > If so, then how do I choose a prop that will result in 2713 rpm static ru= n up at full throttle, but be tuned for efficiency at 2035 rpm cruise?=C2= =A0 I am assuming at these reasonable RPMs that it will be a larger swing a= nd the three blade makes sense - what do you think?=C2=A0 Is there a conven= ient way to find props out there that will work at the target full throttle= HP of 275 or 325?=C2=A0 Also if you guys have any good resources to learn = about how to figure these things out (books, web pages, online calculators,= etc.) that would be great! >=20 > Another option might be to go with something like the IVOPROP Magnum, eit= her ground adjustable or electric inflight adjustable.=C2=A0 What do you gu= ys think of these?=C2=A0 Would the adjustability really help me adapt to ho= wever my power plant turns out?=C2=A0 Would the extra complexity be worth i= t?=C2=A0 For the ground adjustable one, I am thinking the process would be:= =C2=A0 1. select the =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D swing (how?) and go for thre= e blades, 2) use ground adjustability and work up to THE pitch while I tune= the motor until I achieve full throttle static run up around 7700 RPM.=C2= =A0 Will this result in a reasonably efficient setting for 75% cruise?=C2= =A0 Am I thinking about this clearly?=C2=A0 All opinions are welcome. >=20 > There=E2=80=99s a lot for you to chew on! >=20 > =E2=80=94 James >=20 -- Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/L= ist.html =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=20 -- Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/L= ist.html =20 ------=_Part_14837129_958843113.1449075753456 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bump::::::
    Morning all. I still have the 20B up for sale. Talked = to a couple of people but no cash yet. If you are interested, you can conta= ct me on Facebook as stated before and I am on the canard forums as Magnum.=
 Thanks for looking!
~~~tg~~~

From: Tom Gillespie <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrot= ary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:<= /span> Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:44 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Opti= ons

Morning everyone,
  I receiv= ed a few replies to facebook late last night about the 20B and this morning= I went to respond and they are gone for some reason. If you responded, ple= ase do it again or you can find me on the canard forums as magnum. Sorry fo= r the mix up.
~~~tg~~~

From: Bobby J. Hughes <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>= ;
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:25 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with= RD-1C Prop Options

James.
<= br>A PP is not a bad idea if you need the extra HP. My opinion is based on = the RV10 airframe that is designed for 260HP. The 20B side port is a perfec= t match but you may benefit using a good (MT) constant speed prop. Cold idl= e and taxi tuning is more challenging because of the higher manifold pressu= re. 17-18" MP has been observed but this improves some as the engine warms = up.  A PP adds noise but a lot more available takeoff HP if needed. No= t sure you will see any benefit at normal cruise rpm but I bet you could ea= sily reach VNE at higher rpm.  I really like Tracy's simple intake wit= h straight runners and plenum.  Have fun!

Bobby

-----Ori= ginal Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] <= br>Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:05 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircr= aft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B with RD-1C Prop Options

So I fin= ally got a dynamic pressure test done on this 20B.  Here is what I got= :

Front: 105-125-105
Center: 105-101-87
Rear: 130-125-120
<= br>This is in PSI and was done with all spark plugs out except the rotor be= ing tested.  That one got one spark plug and the compression fitting w= ith pressure transducer attached in the other.  I used the RD-1C insta= lled, but not engaged - I bolted up the flex plate without the adapter and = bolted up the RD-1C with a starter to be able to crank it over.  So th= e redrive was not slowing things down when I cranked it over.  Then I = recorded the pressure wave on a laptop and looked at three bumps in a row.&= nbsp; I did this a few times for each rotor with a pause in between and too= k the highest readings of any three successive peaks to estimate the health= of the three faces on each rotor.

My understanding is that higher n= umbers are better and the same numbers across all faces in the motor is bet= ter.  I am unclear what an unacceptable low number might be.  The= actual values you get are dependent on a number of factors including how f= ast you are cranking (how well charged your battery is, how beefy the cable= s are, what kind of porting, other losses like the PSRU if it were engaged,= etc.) and if the motor is broken in or not.  I don=E2=80=99t know if = this motor was broken in, or if any seals were replaced.  It looks cle= an inside and there is evidence of porting, but I don=E2=80=99t know exactl= y what (this is a side port configuration motor).

When I lost a side= seal on my 13B REW in my RX-7, I got something like 118-120-50 on the roto= r that had the problem.  So that was clearly not good.  When I re= built that motor that time, I had the plates ground as they were beyond the= wear limit and I used all new side and corner seals and springs.  Aft= er that rebuild, I got uniformly 120 to 130 on all faces which I think is v= ery good.

So, what do you guys think of my 20B numbers?  Is tha= t low face on the Center rotor bad enough to warrant tearing the motor comp= letely apart?  If I decide to do that, I might very well go PP.  = Though Bobby at least thinks that is a bad idea due to noise and tuning dif= ficulties with the PP.  Or I could just live with it with these number= s, go side port, and break it in and start checking this periodically to se= e if there is any improvement or further deterioration.

Thoughts or = opinions?

=E2=80=94 James

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 1:22 PM, J= ames R. Osborn <rxcited@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> So I am going to be b= uilding an RV-10.  I sourced Bobby=E2=80=99s spare 20B / RD-1C combo a= nd my plan is to work on the motor first, kind of bass-ackward but that is = what I am doing.  My plan is to build a motor/mount test stand and wor= k everything out on the ground before I ever put it in an airframe.  I= plan to set it up NA using the existing side port configuration.  I d= on=E2=80=99t know if it is ported - I am going to attempt to determine this= by inspection without cracking it open and doing a dynamic compression tes= t to evaluate the health of the motor.  If it is necessary to entirely= rebuild the motor, I would probably go PP.  So I am thinking the targ= et HP as it is would be in the 275 HP range and probably 325 HP if it ends = up being a PP.  How do these numbers sound to you all?
>
>= ; I will be looking for a way to dyno it, hopefully borrow one to get some = data.  But I was also thinking about just getting an appropriate fixed= pitch prop and working through the bugs based on static run ups.  I l= ike the idea of a three blade prop.  I like the idea of optimizing for= cruise at 75%, say 5800 rpm which would put full throttle at 7733 rpm on t= he 20B.  At 5800 rpm, the prop would be spinning 2035 rpm and at full = throttle 2713 rpm (using the 2.85 ratio RD-1C PSRU).  Do all these num= bers sound about right?
>
> If so, then how do I choose a prop= that will result in 2713 rpm static run up at full throttle, but be tuned = for efficiency at 2035 rpm cruise?  I am assuming at these reasonable = RPMs that it will be a larger swing and the three blade makes sense - what = do you think?  Is there a convenient way to find props out there that = will work at the target full throttle HP of 275 or 325?  Also if you g= uys have any good resources to learn about how to figure these things out (= books, web pages, online calculators, etc.) that would be great!
> > Another option might be to go with something like the IVOPROP Magnum= , either ground adjustable or electric inflight adjustable.  What do y= ou guys think of these?  Would the adjustability really help me adapt = to however my power plant turns out?  Would the extra complexity be wo= rth it?  For the ground adjustable one, I am thinking the process woul= d be:  1. select the =E2=80=9Ccorrect=E2=80=9D swing (how?) and go for= three blades, 2) use ground adjustability and work up to THE pitch while I= tune the motor until I achieve full throttle static run up around 7700 RPM= .  Will this result in a reasonably efficient setting for 75% cruise?&= nbsp; Am I thinking about this clearly?  All opinions are welcome.
= >
> There=E2=80=99s a lot for you to chew on!
>
> = =E2=80=94 James
>


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotar= y.com/
Archive and UnSub:  http://mail.lancaironlin= e.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
   
--
Hom= epage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:  http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



------=_Part_14837129_958843113.1449075753456--